Lauchlan,

I should start by saying that I'm still dissatisfied with my
'definition' - it's just as good as I've got so far.

I can see item B (the 'american idol' scenario :-) as including some
design.  That is, it is unfortunately true that some top 40 hits appear
to follow a distinct and very predictable formula - rather like gear
boxes for the ears.  So whether B includes design would depend on the
particulars.

In the case of A, things are different.  And I think I may now raise the
ire of all kinds of people - but please remember that I don't intend to
slight or minimize anyone's contributions to anything here.

One of the differences I see between design and art is that the artist
is primarily concerned with self-expression.  Of course the artist is
informed by his experiences with others and with the world, but I
believe the basic "problem" the artist is solving is to get something
out that is only in (the artist).  Whether anyone else likes it or
benefits from it is not really the point.

(Yes, I know that looking at everything as a problem is just one
viewpoint.  This is a viewpoint that is useful to me.  Your mileage may
vary.)

The designer, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with expressing
/others/.  Of course, the designer is informed by his/her own
preferences, experiences, mental content, etc, but I believe the basic
"problem" the designer is solving is to get something out of /someone
else/.  And the result must be (or at least ought to be) to the liking
or benefit of the other (although the designer may benefit too).

So whether Mozart designed or not depends on whether he wrote for
himself or for others.  My sense of history sux, so I wouldn't know if
this is known about him, or Beethoven, or Bach, or....

I also don't believe in spontaneous generation of things like Mozart's
music.  Many people have these moments of 'revelation,' where some idea
or other suddenly pops into their head, fully formed.  It's happened to
me too.  But there's some interesting cognitive science work that
suggests that one's brain works /unconsciously/ at a problem and that at
some threshold, the result is kicked upstairs to one's consciousness.
Having been unconscious of the brain's work, the result appears "fully
formed" as if from nowhere.  I subscribe to this model of things, at
least until such time as science tells me it ain't so.

I made some notes on the stuff I've seen on the cognition of creativity
at http://deseng.ryerson.ca/xiki/Lenk/Creativity

So it *might* be that Mozart had posed himself a problem of trying to
capture some emotion or sentiment in music.  His brain churned away on
the problem unconsciously until it had sorted out a solution, which it
them popped out.

If this is so, then I would have to say Mozart was being creative, but
not designing.  Combine that with the self v. others item above, and I'd
have to say that Mozart was not designing (assuming it all happened as
I've supposed here).

More generally, I believe designing involves creativity to a greater or
lesser extent, in the sense a designer creates something that didn't
exist before (at least in the designer's knowledge/experience).  But not
all creativity is or requires designing.

I'm sure this is all clear as mud....:-)

Cheers.
Fil

"Dr. Lauchlan A. K. Mackinnon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Filippo,
>
>> > "Designing is the development of balanced, implementable solutions to
>> > poorly specified problems that promote preferred situations over the
>> > long term."
>
> I'm curious: the above definition is premised around findiing solutions to
> problems. As a thought-exercise, I'd be interested if you could take the
> following scenarios, and tell me which if these you think is 'design' and
> why:
>
> A) Mozart or Beethoven compose pieces of music (now regarded as classics)
> B) someone deliberately and consciously crafts what becomes a top 40 hit
>
> Would you classify the work of either or both as design, and why?
>
> Myself, I would be prepared to see (B) as design, but not really (A). This
> is because the creative work of a Mozart or a Beethoven might contain
> 'something more' than design, in the sense beautifully expressed by Carl
> Jung (sorry re the length - I already compressed this terrific quote quite a
> bit):
>
> <<
> There are works, verse as well as prose writings, that proceed wholly from
> the author's intention and resolve to produce this or that effect . . . the
> author submits his material to a definite treatment that is both directed
> and purposeful; he adds to it and subtracts from it, emphasizing one effect,
> modifying another, laying on the colour here, that there, with the most
> careful weighing of their possible effects, and with constant observance of
> the law of beautiful form and style  . . . Doubtless, also, I am saying
> nothing new when I speak of the other class of art-works . . . They come as
> it were fully arrayed into the world, as Pallas Athene sprang from the head
> of Zeus. These works positively impose themselves upon the author; his hand
> is, as it were, seized, and his pen writes things that his mind perceives
> with amazement. The work brings with it its own form; what he would add to
> it is declined, what he does not wish to admit is forced upon him . . . he
> is overwhelmed with a flood of thoughts and images which it was never his
> aim to beget and which his will would never have fashioned . . . He can only
> obey and follow the apparently foreign impulse, feeling that his work is
> greater than himself, and therefore has a power over him that he is unable
> to command. He is not identical with the process of creative formation; he
> is himself conscious of the fact that he stands as it were underneath his
> work, or at all events beside it, as thought he were another person who had
> fallen within the magical circle of an alien will.
>>> >>
>
> Is this (A) case 'just' design, or is it something more that taps into the
> deeper subconscious / archetypes and should really be called innovation or
> creativity?
>
> As an important additional consideration, (B) solves a specific problem
> ('create a top 40 hit'), while (A) might be a movement 'from the deeper
> depths of the composer's soul' rather than addressing a problem. For
> example, Mozart reportedly heard his compositions fully formed in his head
> and merely wrote them down. Could we say that (A) simply solves a specific
> problem, or is that too superficial a characteristion of the creative
> process?
>



--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/